If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

As for RedHat's contributions, they tend to focus on quantity over quality. With the exception of Linus' tree, patches that they provide to upstream projects often lack the scrutiny given to patches that they write against the Linux kernel.

What a load of crap. Linus' tree doesnt cover any consumer level QA. He is tagging a kernel for stable release the minute he feels the patch level has calmed enough. Reason: Waiting longer creates a larger thus more challenging patchset for the next kernel. This is really awful. Mainline QA is a regression ride as well, so much crap enters stable releases as well. This means distros gets a nonstable kernel with a stream of regressions from stable updates all the time. RH is willing to eat this shit and provide a first frontier for QAing linux. It is called Fedora.

And I think RH does a wonderfull job with Fedora. Without this QA effort everything would suck ten times more. And for claims about RH not caring for quality? Go ask the paying customers.

What a load of crap. Linus' tree doesnt cover any consumer level QA. He is tagging a kernel for stable release the minute he feels the patch level has calmed enough. Reason: Waiting longer creates a larger thus more challenging patchset for the next kernel. This is really awful. Mainline QA is a regression ride as well, so much crap enters stable releases as well. This means distros gets a nonstable kernel with a stream of regressions from stable updates all the time. RH is willing to eat this shit and provide a first frontier for QAing linux. It is called Fedora.

And I think RH does a wonderfull job with Fedora. Without this QA effort everything would suck ten times more. And for claims about RH not caring for quality? Go ask the paying customers.

Linus' tree requires proper commit messages and a fair amount of discipline in what can constitute an individual commit. That alone goes a long way toward better maintainability.

1. Udev is broken since forever. Nobody seems to care. Nobody is willing to maintain or contribute to udev;
2. Udev is merged to systemd;
3. Udev problems are fixed;
4. A couple broken drivers written for a broken subsystem fail and need to be fixed too;
5. Some people don't agree with the fixes in udev and fork it to fix it their way;

So everything is fine. Just another day in an open-source environment. Copyrights where violated, people trying to offend each other through public discussion means. But that's just the community part of it, so, who cares? I care more about working code written.

Linus <> Linux

Originally Posted by BO$$

I still find it funny that people choose to ignore what linux tells them. It's like they assume he's an idiot and go on do their thing. If torvalds says what you do is shit maybe you should at least consider him.

Linus <> Linux. He hates everything and everything that isn't exactly the way he would do it is garbage in his mind.. If we considered every negative comment from Linus we'd have to throw everything out except the kernel he doesn't code for anymore. It's just like if we listened to Stallman we'd all be accessing the web through wget and shunning wifi. Like every other open source contributor, they have their strengths and serve their purposes, but the Linux platform doesn't depend on, or take orders from, any one of them.

And for claims about RH not caring for quality? Go ask the paying customers.

paying customers usually pay for blending features and ignore quality issues. best example of all is the big win of windows. so your suggestion is the worst possible idea for proving that a software company is caring for quality.